HARBANS SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Retirement of the petitioner with effect from 30.9.1993 ordered by the Executive Engineer, Drilling and Grouting Division, R.S.D. Shahpur Kandi vide Annexure P-4 is under challenge in "his writ petition.

(2.) Initially, the petitioner served Beas Satluj Link Project from 8.7.1963 to 12.3.1979. After his discharge from that Project, he was employed in the Irrigation Department. His date of birth came to be recorded as 15.1.1936 in the service book prepared by the department. Under the existing rules, the petitioner was entitled to continue in service upto January 15, 1996, i.e. till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation. However, on 2.9.1993, the Executive Engineer, Drilling & Grouting Division, R.S.D. Shahpur Kandi issued an order retiring the petitioner with effect from 30.9.1993 on the ground that the date of birth of the petitioner was 15.9.1933 and not 15.1.1936. The petitioner made a representation to the higher authorities, but his representation was rejected. Vide Annexure P-8, the petitioner was informed that as per information supplied by the Personnel Officer, Bhakra Beas Management Board, Nagal, his date of birth was shown 15.9.1933 and that he had no right to continue in service beyond 30th September 1993. The petitioner has questioned his retirement with effect from 30th September 1993 on the ground that his date of birth has been entered as 15.1.1936 in the School Leaving Certificate as well as in the Service Book and without effecting change in the recorded date of birth it was not open to the Executive Engineer to retire him on the basis of his deemed date of birth i.e. 15.9.1933. The petitioner's assertion is that before retiring him from the service on the basis of the deemed date of birth, no notice or opportunity of hearing was afforded to him and that he had no chance to satisfy the departmental authorities that his actual date of birth was 15.1.1936.

(3.) The writ petition has been contested by the respondents, who have in their reply stated that the time of initial appointment in the Bhakra Dam Project the petitioner had filed a declaration (Annexure R-2) indicating his date of birth as 15.9.1933 and that if the petitioner had given out his date of birth as 15.1.1936 he may not have at all been appointed. The respondents have pleaded that the petitioner took advantage of entry in service at Bhakra Dam Project by misrepresenting his actual date of birth as 15.9.1933 and on this ground alone the petitioner should be denied relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The respondents have also pleaded that the suit filed by the petitioner on the same subject-matter was dismissed by the learned Sub Judge-II Class and, therefore, the writ petition should be dismissed as barred by the principles of res judicata.